No Collusion but

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

As Rudy claims, even if there was, it’s not a crime. Roger Stone arrested in FL with seven count indictment, which unless you are blind to the facts, proves collusion between the Trump campaign, Wikileaks and Russia. The WALL is closing in around the Trump family, maybe that is why he is holding out over the wall, he figures if I’m going down I’m taking the dems with me.

OK, this is a sincere question, not trying to be a jerk.

I just saw Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Harvard law professor, on TV. He said that the indictments against Stone (like most of the Mueller indictments) cover crimes that occurred after the Mueller investigation started. Meaning, the crimes amount to misdeeds done to obstruct the Mueller investigation (witness tampering, obstruction, etc), not misdeeds that connect the Trump campaign to Russian collusion during the campaign. How does the indictment prove collusion between team trump, wikileaks, and Russia.

I am just asking the question, is Dershowitz right or wrong?

And obviously, people who are guilty have much more incentive to obstruct and tamper with witnesses.

And here's another sincere question. If Trump colluded with the Russians to get dirt on the Hilary campaign (and that's looking like less and less of a huge 'if'), how different is that, from the DOJ using the Clinton-funded Steele dossier to get FISA warrants on an American citizen?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the 7 indictments/convictions demonstrate there's quite a lot there. This is now the third thread of collusion or attempted collusion by the Trump campaign on record.

Witches be everywhere.

And the evidence needs to be collected and put in front of proper authority / legislatures. There are constitutionally protected procedures for this and flying a RESIST flag is not one of them

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And the evidence needs to be collected and put in front of proper authority / legislatures. There are constitutionally protected procedures for this and flying a RESIST flag is not one of them

Legislatures or the DOJ. I don't think Congress should act until there's a formal report but with what we know from the indictments alone an obstruction case isn't going to be hard to make. Don Jr seems to have a clear perjury indictment waiting for him.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I am just asking the question, is Dershowitz right or wrong?

He's technically right but that's just legal wonk. The DOJ could still bring additional indictments to Stone, or they might think the charges against Stone for conspiracy may not be strong enough for a grand jury but the obstruction and false statements are. Regardless it seems like he has a lot of lying to be accountable for.

And here's another sincere question. If Trump colluded with the Russians to get dirt on the Hilary campaign (and that's looking like less and less of a huge 'if'), how different is that, from the DOJ using the Clinton-funded Steele dossier to get FISA warrants on an American citizen?

You're comparing apples and tractor tires. Regardless the FISA warrant for Page was based on a lot of intel that had nothing to do with the Dossier. Even with that, there are no rules that state info like the Dossier can't be used for the warrant, it's up for the judge to decide, and 4 republican appointed federal judges agreed with the surveillance.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

He's technically right but that's just legal wonk. The DOJ could still bring additional indictments to Stone, or they might think the charges against Stone for conspiracy may not be strong enough for a grand jury but the obstruction and false statements are. Regardless it doesn't seem like he has a lot of lying to be accountable for.


You're comparing apples and tractor tires. Regardless the FISA warrant for Page was based on a lot of intel that had nothing to do with the Dossier. Even with that, there are no rules that state info like the Dossier can't be used for the warrant, it's up for the judge to decide, and 4 republican appointed federal judges agreed with the surveillance.

so what is in the stone indictments, which connects team
trump directly to wikileaks and the russians?

agreed on the steele dossier, no rules against it. but when it’s paid for by an opposition political campaign, and used to spy on a citizen ( didnhebget accused or indicted or
convicted of
anything, by the way?), smells like
the opposite of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so what is in the stone indictments, which connects team
trump directly to wikileaks and the russians?

Well, Stone is Trump's longest political confidant and was on the campaign team for a period and I believe remained on as an adviser. I also believe the indictment contains evidence of communication between Guccifer 2.0 (i.e Russia) Stone, Assange and unnamed Trump campaign officials. I'm sure we'll learn more about this.

agreed on the steele dossier, no rules against it. but when it’s paid for by an opposition political campaign, and used to spy on a citizen ( didnhebget accused or indicted or
convicted of
anything, by the way?), smells like
the opposite of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we said before, Cater Page was on the FBI's radar for his Russian connections before the Dossier.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, Stone is Trump's longest political confidant and was on the campaign team for a period and I believe remained on as an adviser. I also believe the indictment contains evidence of communication between Guccifer 2.0 (i.e Russia) Stone, Assange and unnamed Trump campaign officials. I'm sure we'll learn more about this.


As we said before, Cater Page was on the FBI's radar for his Russian connections before the Dossier.

did page ever get indicted for anything? the fbi, at least some within the DOJ, seemed to have an anti trump agenda, we all saw the Strzok texts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

did page ever get indicted for anything? the fbi, at least some within the DOJ, seemed to have an anti trump agenda, we all saw the Strzok texts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not every investigation leads to an indictment. It’s possible it provided info on others that were. As for Strzok I believe the IG said it didn’t influence his professional work. The media report was on a handful of texts out of many thousands even.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not every investigation leads to an indictment. It’s possible it provided info on others that were. As for Strzok I believe the IG said it didn’t influence his professional work. The media report was on a handful of texts out of many thousands even.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so that’s a
no, page was never charged with anything? jeez, all you had to say was no. and steroids was demoted, and fired, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device